{Empty title} | The Nation

1. Better than vilifying a Glenn Beck, if one of them should report that the healthcare bill bothers him because it represents a national embrace of socialism and a turning away from capitalism, is to say to the Beck that you are certain that the American people would be amenable to having their healthcare funded by the levying of taxes upon those who have the money. Discuss.

2. During the healthcare debate, Nancy Pelosi--a Catholic and a woman--hid behind the pants of the Bart Stupaks of this nation, in what turns out to have been an attempt to deny her constituents access to one of their representatives. Nothing worse was going to happen to Pelosi than that the church would give her laurels and women's rights groups would give her hell (and she'd break even). Discuss.

3. Being both an attorney and a member of Congress who'd voted (on no evidence) to have the US military to carry out the death penalty against innocent Iraqis, Hillary Clinton was, for a very long time, unable to serve her constituents and to impeach George Bush without her also impeaching herself and doing that first. Discuss.

4. Goodwin Liu, as a member of the Supreme Court, could be so liberal--so much more appreciative of claims that Guantánamo detainees experienced injustices at the hands of the US--that he would make everyone from The Nation's Matthew Duss ("Attack of the Cheneys") to President Obama look conservative.

What if it's the case that those imprisoned in Guantánamo (or others like them, who experienced *extreme* extreme rendition) were kidnapped? (Remember: there exists no evidence in favor of the war.) What if the fact that they were kidnapped--kidnapping being a crime punishable by death--is the only reason why none of them (all of them being spoils of war, their internments still providing justification for Dem jobs-training programs, etc.) were brought into the US to begin with?

5. We're still burying war dead because journalists chose not to say on behalf of those dead, when they were alive, that they had a right to examine the evidence in favor of the war that was promising to take their lives.

For what reason better than to maintain one's own defenses does anyone determine any piece of information to be secret, beyond the purview of anyone else? These journalists are the same people who today lobby me to confer upon them what they describe as a right to keep sources confidential. They already have such a right, do they not? What they're asking me to do is to remove them from the need ever to demonstrate a belief in rights themselves, and not excluding the right to life.

For these journalists, I have the same two questions I've always had for journalists: How stupid do you think I am? What, exactly, are you willing to bet?

To The Editor: The above five contributions to your cause are worth more to you than most would-be journalists' ten. Take my word for it.